Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Why Liberals Should Be Thrilled That Judith Miller Is Going To Prison

She was told by two Senior Administration Officials that Judith Plame is a CIA operative -- an act which is a violation of Federal Law (for the officials).
As a NYTimes reporter

(here's today's OpEd where they hold forth)
, she believes -- as do many journalists -- that all her conversations deserve absolute protection. The Supreme Court found this week that absolute protection for the sources of journalists does not exist in the Constitution.

We liberals should get down on our knees and thank God that protection does not exist. If it did, it would be a "nuclear weapon" by which angry and vindictive government officials would exact revenge on individual American Citizens. And get away with it. Here's how that would work.

The single largest steward of information about individuals is the United States Government. They collect all our financial data, our criminal records, our history; they write down the speculation of informants to the FBI, our secret testimonies regarding Supreme Court nominees (hello, Anita Hill).

If Miller's Right existed, any time someone in the government got a personal vendetta against you, they would pick up a phone, call a journalist, and, boom, now your private information is public, possilby ruining your reputation, possibly making it impossible for you to do business, or function in society. It might even -- as it did in Plame's case -- endanger the lives of any friend she has in Africa, where she operated, and where despotic murderous governments tend to kill opponents who talk to the CIA. It's a weapon which is unilaterally held by US Government officials, for which there is no counter-weapon.

The important difference between Miller's Leak and leaks which should -- must -- be protected, is that Miller's leak served no useful social or national purpose, at all. It did not promote common defense, general welfare, blessings of liberty et al. It was a vindictive attempt by US Government officials to punish a citizen for standing up against it. There is no defense against such a weapon; no review of it in the courts before it happens.


No comments: